‘Pagod’

by Emmanuel Doy Santos

Who would have thought that 36 years after the EDSA ‘People Power’ revolt of 1986, we would face another election where the leading candidates include one Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and a widow, turned politician aligned with the Aquinos?

Having lived through Martial Law, I cannot really fathom what is unfolding. Within what I thought was my own circle of tight knit friends, bonds that have lasted decades have snapped. People have left our group because they can’t stand the rhetoric of some of its members. Friends whom I had never known to be political are now quite vocal about their views and judging those who don’t share them.

I’ve never really seen such partisanship before. People are taking their politics in such a deeply personal manner, the way they treat religion. I mean, if anyone should take it that way it ought to be me. My late father Emmanuel Tiu Santos was a bona fide EDSA figure.

Having campaigned for Ferdinand Sr in 1961 and gotten Imelda as a sponsor at his wedding in 1967, he turned when Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972. Having sponsored the bill of political, social and economic rights in the Con-Con, as well as the provisions setting up the Ombudsman, he realized that he needed to take a stand.

He decided to throw his hat in the ring in 1978. He co-founded the political party Lakas ng Bayan (LABAN) and ran with Ninoy Aquino. They contested seats for the national capital region in the Interim Batasan Pambansa elections and faced off with his ninang Imelda and her KBL slate.

My father together with his crew helped engineer the noise barrage that swept the capital prior to election day. He and many others considered this to be the first battle cry of EDSA (see ‘Laban ’78 to EDSA ’86', Inquirer, April 23, 2016).

I personally visited Ninoy in Times Street when he was under house arrest. Our family went to Boston in the summer of 1981 and spent three days with Ninoy and Tita Cory going around Harvard, Bunker Hill and other local sites.

After EDSA, dad literally dodged bullets and a grenade that was hurled at him while delivering a speech at his ‘miting de avance’ on the eve of the elections of 1988. He stood for election having been the appointed governor of his home province Nueva Ecija. This was an election that locals to this day maintain was stolen from him.

If anyone should hold strong views about a potential return of the Marcoses and their cronies to power, it ought to be people like me. But somehow, I’m not as affected, as some of my friends, who growing up, never really spoke of politics.

I do know that the outcome of this election does matter. When I see Marcos Jr polling ahead, it does affect me. I sleep uneasily at night and wake-up the following morning worrying for my country. But one thing I cannot bring myself to do is criticize nor condemn my friends who are Marcos loyalists.

The reason for that is simple. I recognize that the Marcoses were a product of their time and the internal contradictions of Philippine society that began at its founding when the Spanish friar lands fell into the hands of a few. As Iyer and Maurer (2009) pointed out, wealth became even more concentrated after the American colonial government partitioned and distributed these lands between 1903 and 1918.

“The ‘landed elite’ appears to have been broadened at the expense of smallholding families,” they wrote. This gave rise to the Old Society, where in the words of Ninoy “the few enjoy the fat of the land, and the many suffer.”

I’ve come to recognize a truism (and I mean no disrespect to those aggrieved by the late dictator). Yes, thousands were confirmed to have been abducted, summarily executed, mutilated, raped and tortured during that dreadful period under Marcos Sr. But this horrendous and horrific suffering is itself dwarfed by the tens of thousands that die in our country every year due to lack of basic human and health services, malnutrition, and natural disasters.

Yes, billions were siphoned off by the Marcoses to overseas bank accounts, and only a fraction was returned. But that too is a fraction of the billions wasted and stolen by corrupt officials today. How can we be so intolerant of one kind of abuse, yet turn a blind eye to the other?

The Marcoses, as dreadful as they are, as shameless as they are, are not the real problem. They are merely a symptom of the problem. The fact that their political fortunes have reversed, points to the failings of the post-EDSA neoliberal state that replaced them. The reason why I can’t engage in this gratuitous display of faux revulsion at the Marcoses, is that both sides are equally to blame for the perpetuation of our people’s suffering.

After all these years of political squabbles, I’ve grown weary of the circus that goes on at elections, while the fundamental basic needs of our people remain overlooked. For once, I’d like for us to take their problem seriously. Stop pretending that it will go away, the moment we vanquish the other side. No, it won’t go away. It hasn’t.

It is clear that what we need to do is see through the illusion of a dualist world view where the competing narratives of either side battle it out, and deal with the reality of ordinary people's lives where the true battle for survival persists. The best way to prevent a repeat of the past is not to promote a confected golden age by one side or the other, but to step out of the cycle of reactivity and retribution, to end the cycle of poverty, and attend to the fierce urgency of now.

The author is a development economist completing his doctoral studies in policy innovation at the University of New England in Australia. He supports Isko Moreno for president.

Isko Moreno fulfils the promise of EDSA

Image courtesy of Campfire Media

Adherents of the EDSA movement claim we live in a dualist world. Elections are the site for the eternal battle between the forces of good against the hordes of evil. One side cannot exist without the other. That is the way they have framed every election since 1986. 

One of the biggest challenges of liberal democracy is the inflation of expectations. Openness and freedom cause everyone's desires, hopes and dreams to be pinned on a system of equal representation and deliberation. Incrementalism and patience are virtues in this context. It often leads to dissatisfaction and despair at the sluggish pace at which change occurs. 

This is why from time to time, the electorate wavers in its support for democratic ideals. This is particularly true in times of crises. Pres. Rodrigo Duterte harnessed voter dismay in 2016. He offered a quicker, more direct route to the fulfilment of expectations by weakening our system of checks and balances.

The election of vice president was equally important in that year. Sen. Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. was favored to win. That is why Leni Robredo has become an all-important figure in the pantheon of EDSA. It was she who prevented Marcos Jr from being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

The upcoming election of 2022 is billed as a rematch between Marcos Jr and Mrs. Robredo. The Duterte years will be seen either as prelude to a Marcos restoration or interlude to the EDSA regime, depending on its outcome. Both their candidacies have been energized by this match-up. Both have exploited its dualist aspects to harness support and galvanize their base.

The problem is that neither seem attuned to the requirements for the top job. It will be twelve years since Marcos Jr last held executive office as governor of the sparsely populated province of Ilocos Norte. He has spent the last six years pleading his case before the electoral tribunal. His preoccupation during this time has been as a vlogger promoting his counter narrative. 

Vice president Robredo for her part has spent the last six years without a clear role in the Duterte administration. She has used her office's meager resources to take pot shots at him and to moonlight as a quasi-NGO leader. Her Angat Buhay program relies on private donor contributions and volunteers to function. The feasibility and appropriateness of institutionalizng them as government programs run by public agencies is yet to be determined.

This is perhaps why both deploy narrative rather than substance to fuel enthusiasm for their respective candidacies. Marcos Jr's videos are all about the achievements of his father's 20 year rule. Robredo's confetti sprinkled caravan reminds us of the protest movement against the late dictator. Both harken with nostalgic fondness to a confected golden age and seek to prevent a return of the opposing side.

They both downplay the challenges of the present. A pandemic threatens our very lives and livelihoods now and in the foreseeable future. The plans of both are ephemeral and self-referential. Marcos Jr wants to unify the nation and lead it down a path towards greatness again. Robredo's plan is to commission a team to study the gaps in our health care system and draw up a plan to deal with them. 

The strategy of either side is to captivate and mesmerize the public with myth and folklore to distract from the urgencies of the now. Enter Isko Moreno. He came of age during the lost decade of the 1980s. The nation was reeling from the debt overhang of the Marcos years. The slow, but steady process of climbing out of this abyss rendered the promise of EDSA unfulfilled.

Isko's message is simple: instead of focusing on the never-ending enmity between the EDSA and Marcos regimes, let's focus on the people. It is clear from this message that we need to go beyond the illusion of a dualist world to deal with the reality of ordinary people's lives. The best way to prevent a repeat of the past is not to promote a confected golden age, but to step out of the cycle of reactivity and retribution.

Isko is the perfect medium for this message. His life and work demonstrate it. His life exemplifies how an ordinary poor boy from the slums of Tondo can rise above the vagaries of this world without resentment or vindictiveness to the powers-that-be. His record as a local executive demonstrates how to quickly respond to the needs and aspirations of his electorate while respecting democratic accountability, transparency and the rule of law.

This is why Isko Moreno fulfils the promise of EDSA. He puts into practice its basic tenets. Creating a level playing field for everyone, irrespective of their standing in life. This is done by giving them equal access to the means for achieving their fullest potential. His numerous achievements in education, healthcare, housing and job creation in the nation's capital provide a workable and scalable template for the rest of the country. 

It is perhaps for this reason that loyalists from both the Marcos and Robredo camps seek to discredit and tarnish his personal reputation and record in office. They see him as the biggest obstacle to the restoration of their political fortunes. The threat comes from his re-framing of our perennial problem. Moreno's non-dualist worldview lays the squabbling of the past 50 years to rest. 

This in the end was what EDSA was meant to bring about. Not the permanent dominance of one political persuasion over another. The movement, according to Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr, was meant to restore the free and open contest of ideas. This would produce a better synthesis for the Filipino people. Mayor Isko Moreno's syncretic ideas could offer a better fit for the present moment. Our weary electorate may decide that now is the perfect time to give him and his ideas a chance. 

Dilawan: Rise and fall of the EDSA regime - Duterte and the Next Wave

            

If Marcos was the logical conclusion of the Old Republic, which was built on a feudal society, where “a few enjoyed the fat of the land, and the many suffered”, then the natural extension of our post-EDSA republic, with its monopolistic capitalist model, is Duterte. The internal contradictions of each society ultimately brought about the conditions for the emergence of these leaders.

The lost opportunity of EDSA was that rather than building a more just and humane society, we simply re-incarnated the old one with the result of entrapping many Filipinos into a life of servitude to the vagaries of the market, as we pursued a neoliberal model of development.

Dilawan: Rise and Fall of the EDSA Regime - Uno, Dos Tres

"I am the Market and thou shalt have no other models before me."

That is the first commandment of neoliberalism, an ideology that took root in the Philippines after the February 1986 people power revolt at EDSA.

In this series on the Rise and Fall of the EDSA Regime, we’ve been looking at the origins of the yellow movement and its impact on Philippine society. 

From New Society to post-EDSA reality

The vision of the New Society under Pres. Marcos was to usher in a new order from the decaying old republic. The era of the Commonwealth in the Philippines was a gilded age that offered few avenues for upward mobility. Political bosses delivered the votes at national elections, and oligarchs fuelled party machineries to get out the vote.  

It naturally bred social unrest, which came to a boil in both the Huk rebellion and Marxist CPP insurgency. Marcos’ solution was to instigate a revolution from the center, to save the system from itself. Out of the chaos where both elites and mass movements conspired to rob the state of its capacity to govern, the New Society would bring such destructive forces to heel.

Marcos defied them by adopting a long-range vision and introducing modern methods in implementing that vision. He allowed technocrats to perform these functions. And while the president busied himself with economic matters, his wife took up the cudgels for art and culture.

State-run media controlled the narrative. The Philippines would be “great again” as Marcos pledged at his first inaugural.

The only plot hole in this arc was that it all depended on one individual. Marcos had arogated all power to himself. This lack of accountability tempted him, his wife and cronies to amass great wealth.This, in turn made them feel invincible. Thinking he could hold on to power indefinitely, Marcos failed to groom a successor.

When his regime finally fell, it left a massive hole, which took decades to fill. The EDSA ‘people power’ revolt that toppled him simply revived the old republic, with certain protections to prevent the state from interfering in the way individuals chose to live. Many of the New Society’s projects were abandoned. From one grand vision, it became, to each his own.

If the New Society sought to transform the individual through order and discipline, the EDSA regime sought to transform society by empowering people with individual freedoms. There was no obligation to serve a nobler cause. The individual was at the center of this universe. Everything else was meant to fulfill its desires.

The only problem was that over time, as the population grew rapidly, following the dismantling of Marcos’ population program, the enjoyment of one individual’s personal freedoms seemed to ‘crowd out’ that of others. These ‘negative externalities’ as economists like to call them, began to erode the quality of life for all, rich and poor alike.

The old republic survived thirty years from 1935 to Marcos’s election in 1964. His reign lasted twenty years from 1965 to 1985. The EDSA regime began in 1986. Thirty years later in 2016, the election of Pres. Duterte brought it to an end.

As the first post-EDSA president to enunciate a grand vision for society, Duterte’s war on drugs, corruption and criminality, his massive infrastructure program, and ambitious clean-up of Boracay and Manila Bay have sought to reimpose the welfare of society over the rights of the individual.

Duterte is doing this while supporting programs aimed at empowering people with economic freedoms. Under his watch, universal access to quality tertiary education, healthcare, school feeding programs, and the expansion of maternity leave and senior citizen benefits are occurring.

Is this a synthesis of the New Society and EDSA narratives? A golden mean between the welfare of society and the rights of individuals?

What happens after Duterte leaves? Will his successors hew strictly to one of these narratives? Or will they express them both in multiple ways.

The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze illustrated, that the same word unités, stands for both unity and unit. Neither one precludes the other. The same applies to grand narratives involving society and the individual. There is no preordained hierarchy, no predestined point at which history concludes.

If politics is the art of the possible, then instead of posing the question, how must one govern, or what is to be done? The question might instead become, how could one govern, or how might things be done?

Episode 11: Duterte on a similar path as Daang Matuwid?

Both Daang Matuwid and the Duterte’s Tapang at Malasakit sought to reshape society through moral rectitude: the former by fighting corruption, the latter by fighting drugs and criminals. The problem was that both the LP and DDS (Duterte Defense Squad) took extra-legal and extra-judicial shortcuts to achieve their objectives, thinking that their democratic mandate justified this.

But democratic accountability and rule of law can sit side by side with robust and effective law enforcement. Achieving this requires both administration and opposition to work together towards a national consensus around workable solutions. Purposeful evolution rather than revolution is needed.

Get the show notes to the podcast here.

Episode 8: Can Duterte avoid the pitfalls of Marcos? Part 4

Is the Philippines about to fall into a debt trap under Duterte the way it did under Marcos? This is the fourth in a series called Can Duterte avoid the pitfalls of Marcos? In this installment we look at Marcos' strategy of promoting growth through debt, while extracting maximum personal benefit for himself from it. Vice president Leni Robredo has cautioned Pres. Duterte against falling into this same trap as he contracts loans from China in a bid to lift infrastructure spending. We examine whether her fears have any basis, and discuss ways Duterte can prevent them from happening.

Get the show notes to this podcast here.